Climate Change and Scientific Integrity

Climate change is a subject of constant debate by the American public and policymakers. While scientists at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have consistently pointed to humans as a cause for a rise in global temperatures in the last few decades, the public has still expressed doubt. Recent events again brought the issue to the forefront, including the release of e-mails hacked from a server at a British university that suggested scientists conspired to suppress data that did not agree with climate change; questions about research added to IPCC reports, such as a notation about shrinking Himalayan glaciers that was found to lack scientific backing; and the Snowpocalypse in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The snow-in created an opportunity for global-warming skeptics to express their doubts publicly. For instance, Sen. Jim Inofe, R-Okla., created an igloo on the National Mall with the sign “Al Gore’s New Home” to mock Gore’s stance on the subject. All of these situations raise questions about the accuracy of the climate data. In the end, it is scientists who must gain the public’s confidence by ensuring the integrity of the research.

On Thursday, March 4, the Baker Institute will host a panel of climate change scientists from the United Kingdom who will discuss the challenges of communicating their research to the general public. The scientists include Tim Reeder, regional climate change programme manager for the U.K. Environment Agency; Mark Maslin, director of the Environment Institute at the University College of London; and David Vaughan, science leader of the British Antarctic Survey. The event will be co-sponsored by Rice University’s Center of the Study of Environment and Society; its director, André W. Droxler, a professor of earth science, will serve as the moderator.

7 Responses

The title makes it sound like the issue of what will happen in the future is already decided.

Will this talk be one-sided, in favor of anthropotomac global warming? Will there be full disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in the carbon and green markets? Al Gore manages an investment fund specializing in “green” and “carbon credit” markets. His business is called “Generation Investment Management, LLP.” This LLP manages trillions of investment funds. Trillions. Pachauri of the IPCC is in the same situation: many entanglements with money-making efforts. The United Nations has a division dedicated to building investment in this global-warming-belief generated business. It is called UN Principles for Responsible Investment. This is all at their website. THey are all over the globe, convincing private people and nations to invest in global-warming-control-related businesses such as carbon swap markets. So, right there, we have conflict of interest that is quite notable.

The recent Copenhagen summit made it painfully obvious that the wealthy nations are divvying up the world again, and excluding the less wealthy nations. Controlling my car exhaust drives controls whether I drive or not; controllong a country’s emissions puts a control on their infrastructure and commerce. What should have been a green summit with global support ended up looking exactly like a G12 summit or an IMF meeting.

Will this Baker event be a polite chat where dissent will not be tolerated, or will this be a serious policy evaluation, where the crumbling case for anthropotomac global warming is ignored?

Climatedepot.com is an easy point to begin evaluating the man behind the curtain, whom we are supposed to be ignoring.

The presentations will be from scientists, but then we will have a long discussion time to allow for any comments or questions from the audience. While we would like the questions to be polite, we have no issues with discussing doubt, conflicts of interest, data integrity or other issues of concern by the general public regarding climate change.

“The Challenges of Communicating Climate Change” sounds to me like an assumption has already been made.

“..it is scientists who must gain the public’s confidence by ensuring the integrity of the research.”

exactly. And a simple start would be to revoke the credentials of those involved in falsifying the data, including dismantling the IPCC which has single-handedly done more damage to scientific credibility than a thousand Piltdown Men. And do it publicly so that the public may witness the scientific community policing itself.

“While we would like the questions to be polite, we have no issues with discussing doubt, conflicts of interest, data integrity or other issues of concern by the general public regarding climate change.”

Then what’s the point? It’s been exposed a a scam, an air tax, and it’s leader Al Gore should be brought up on criminal charges with those scientists who were being paid to produce fake results in order to create an entire industry. That’s the only real evidence here.

I may have been unclear – you can ask whatever question you would like on the subject at the event. We only request that you are not rude to the speakers.

Blog Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Search

Top Videos

The mission of the nonpartisan James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy is to help bridge the gap between theory and practice of public
policy by drawing together experts from academic, government, media, business
and nongovernmental organizations. By involving policymakers, scholars
and students, the institute seeks to improve the debate on selected public
policy issues and to make a difference in the formulation, implementation and
evaluation of public policy. The institute’s more than 20 programs, which include research, speaking series, events and special projects, have helped attract a host of prominent leaders who provide their views and insights on key issues.